On July 30th, the Project for Nuclear Awareness sponsored a packed screening of the provocative film by Lucy Walker and Lawrence Bender, Countdown to Zero. Afterward, there was a discussion at the Ritz Theater, featuring speakers Todd Fine, Countdown to Zero Researcher, Mary Boardman, PNA Assistant Director, and Kim Thao-Nguyen,  of Ban All Nukes Generation USA, and producer of Disarm TV.

We’re grateful for all who attended, many of whom said they are moved to act on what they learned.  Look for an audio recording of the discussion, and video interviews with audience members responding to the film, coming soon to DisarmTV. Share your thoughts about Countdown to Zero in in a video and send it to Emily at emily.pna@gmail.com, to have it featured on Disarm TV.

During the discussion, we agreed that the new START Treaty is not just needed, but essential.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee may vote on the Treaty as early as this week—so call or write your Senator, which you can do right here- every call and letter counts! PNA fully supports the Treaty, but not the deal to increase spending on the nuclear weapons complex. We believe this is both wasteful and counter-productive, in terms of the credibility that new START is regaining, after years of previous rollback on our solemn international commitments.

Another important conversation was about “nuclear policy champions” in the Senate. PNA has been working with Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), who has already stepped up on START and other key issues.  An audience member noted:  “We hope that both the Senator and others step up in support of the ultimate disarmament of our nuclear weapons.”  In fact, Casey has supported the call by the President for a world free of nuclear weapons.  What we’d like is a clearer statement by the Administration of the ways and means we’ll get there.  In the end, we believe that people often lead their governments to change, as much as the other way around.  This is why your votes, and your calls and letters are so important.

Yet another hot topic discussed on the agenda:  We need policy champions on bloated spending, both on nuclear weapons and other weapons systems.   We’re happy to see forward motion in the Report, Debt, Deficits, & Defense: A Way Forward, by the Sustainable Defense Task Force, commissioned by Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts.

As reported by CLW blogger Laicie Olson, we can save “nearly $1 trillion over ten years,” in this area alone.  This is not just rhetoric, but carefully planned reductions that would not jeopardize security, according to discussions we’ve had with defense experts.

“I do not believe after this proposed plan is circulated that people will be able to dismiss the argument that you can responsibly, and at no cost to America’s genuine security, make reductions of over a trillion dollars for what has been proposed for the military budget,” Frank said at the release on Friday.

Cuts include further reductions to the U.S. nuclear arsenal and limits on the planned modernization of the nuclear weapons complex, which could save approximately $140 billion over 10 years.  When missile defense and space spending are also selectively curtailed, that number is increased to $194.5 billion.

So write your Senator and House Member, the first on START and Zero Nukes, and both in support of the Task Force’s conclusions:  We can safely cut levels of missile defense, we can cut unneeded systems, and we need to use the savings productively, in at least two ways.

One, we need to fund better verification of our treaties; this will make the ultimate dream of a nuclear-free world come closer to reality, as people gain assurance that all nuclear fuel cycles, all states with nuclear power, and all nuclear weapons remaining in arsenals are closely monitored.  Two, we need a Fissile Materials Control Treaty.  This is on the Obama administration’s agenda, and we need to push strongly for it to happen and not wither on the vine after the November election.  This treaty, like START, will need money for verification—but much less money than we would spend on new weapons complexes, by a factor of ten or more.

The American people have to ask themselves: Do we want business-as-usual from the US Congress?  Or do we want superior security and a peaceful foreign policy at a more reasonable price?  Let them know what you think.  Call, write, or visit Congress.  If you are interested in upcoming PNA visits to Congress in early August and mid-September, please call executive assistant Emily Gleason, or Ed Aguilar, executive director, at 215-546-3030, or email emily.pna@gmail.com.

In Countdown to Zero:  Valerie Plame Emerges as a Chief Promoter of Zero Nuclear Weapons

Valerie Plame, who worked for many years to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, has emerged as a spokesperson for ending nuclear weapons altogether, in promoting the hit film documentary Countdown to Zero—in which she also appears.

In “How to Dismantle 23,000 Atom Bombs,” Valerie Plame gives not just the questions, but a lot of the answers, about how we really start getting to zero nuclear weapons.  It involves a lot of work, but in the end, she makes clear that “nothing else” will keep an atom bomb from eventually going off somewhere, with disastrous consequences not just for people and the environment, but also likely for our civil liberties, as the survivors would demand drastic action against real or imagined threats.  http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/07/valerie-plame-wilson-nuclear-nukes.

One of the controversial points made in the film is the threat from fundamentalist extremists.  Here’s another view, http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/06/al-qaeda-says-it-would-use-pakistans-nukes-us from Mother Jones.

But is this the only or main threat?  We at the Project for Nuclear Awareness don’t think so.  The main threat is clearly the existence of so many nukes, some 23,000 in the world, some better guarded than others.  The responsibility for having created and kept so many of these—about 95% between them—falls squarely on the top two nuclear powers, the U.S. and Russia. And there are 7 other powers with the bomb. Three of them, Pakistan, India, and Israel have not signed the NPT—the treaty that keeps track of and tries to prevent the spread of these bombs.  Iran signed, but is playing footsie with the IAEA inspectors.  We have a lot of work to do.

This is why START is so important.  This new treaty with Russia is the first serious, verifiable treaty to reduce nuclear weapons in 20 years.  The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee may vote on it as early as Wednesday—then it goes to the full Senate for approval by 2/3.  And with this Senate, the vote is not guaranteed.

To support START—you can send your letter to your Senator in support of prompt action to ratify START.  We also must tell our Members of Congress: While START is a step in the right direction, we do not need to spend over $100 Billion to “modernize” the existing arsenal and nuclear plants, over ten years, as the Administration has stated. We should save those funds, and use them instead to do more to support the IAEA Inspections, to pay for more comprehensive cleanup of previous atomic materials and waste, and finally to fully compensate atomic veterans and their descendants, including uranium miners who sustained cancers and other ailments as a result. And we DON’T need new uranium mines, planned for Native American lands, which would cause more death and destruction.

Those who want to take the next step on these issues can visit Congress with PNA and other allies.   And those who want to sign on for Zero, should watch this film, learn all you can, and get active for the long haul.  Give a call to PNA.  Tell us how you liked (or didn’t like) the film.  Give us your ideas, or send a generous donation.  And if you agree that this is one of the most important issues of our time, join us.  Call 215-546-3030, and learn what more you can do on your campus or in your community, at home or with Congress!

On Monday of this week, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Ranking Republican, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, was interviewed by the National Journal Weekly online.  His discussion is significant, because the new START and all arms reduction treaties cannot pass the U.S. Senate without at least 8-10 Republican votes.
.
Sen. Lugar is the senior Republican on these issues, and the former Chairman of Foreign Relations.  Dick Lugar also has a distinguished record in his own right.  He is part of the now-historic “Nunn-Lugar Team” who paired with Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), on the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program with Russia, which prevented “loose nukes” after the Cold War.  Nunn is now part of the famous “Gang of Four” statesmen who have supported a world free of nuclear weapons, breaking the logjam and encouraging hundreds more leaders to come out in support.
.
Senator Lugar understands the threat of nuclear weapons, and has done more than most, to help reduce it.  The interview is worth reading, and we hope will inspire many more members of the Senate GOP Caucus to support the new START Treaty.  Here are the links, to the interview, and to a petition to support the Treaty.

.

-Ed Aguilar, Project for Nuclear Awareness

The Non-Proliferation Treaty Final Document was released by the United Nations on May 28, 2010.

.

This document has both an excellent summary by the Conference Chairman, Philippine Ambassador Libran Cabactulan, and some revealing comments from the Conference Representatives from various states –both nuclear powers, and also many from non-nuclear weapons states.  This also includes members of the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) which played an increasing role in the Conference, and from other independent countries such as Japan, Australia, Canada, and Austria.

.

Below you will a link to the Final Document, with PNA’s notes on several points.  While the Conference can be called a qualified success, it is only one step forward  in a journey of a thousand miles.

.

However, some would argue that it was a giant step in that consensus was achieved among numerous parties who have never sat down and agreed with each other on substantive issues of this importance before.  And it is certainly a needed step, before the next steps can be taken toward the ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.  Finally, while several states such as Iran, Cuba, and Austria dissented in several points, none were moved to break the overall consensus on the three pillars of the conference, as described in the Final Document.

.

During the height of the Cold War, the United States and Russia together had over 60,000 nuclear weapons, many of them in the megaton range, up to one hundred times the size of the Hiroshima bomb—more than enough weapons to destroy the planet forever.  These weapons not only placed the entire planet in jeopardy, but they were exponentially more than was necessary to eliminate the nuclear capacity of the other side.  The prevalent deterrence doctrine was called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)—a fitting term.

Today we and the Russians have roughly 1/6 as many weapons, but they are still factorially more than we need for minimal security, even assuming that there would be a nuclear exchange.  Indeed, a recent paper by three U.S. military analysts concludes that we only “need” 311 of the over 5,500 operational nuclear weapons in the U.S. today.  The fact is, however, that relations with the Russian Federation no longer demand nuclear weapons at all, and that these weapons could be eliminated.  Nor do we need these weapons for our security with other countries, as our conventional forces are overwhelming.  Today, the United States spends more on its defense than the rest of the world together, with only a fraction of this budget going for nuclear weapons.  We have come to a time when nuclear weapons are simply not necessary.

Recently, Pres. Obama declared that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states with the possible exception of North Korea and Iran.  As for the nuclear states, only Russia has an arsenal which should be considered in any way threatening to the United States.  China, for example, is content with a very low number of weapons, whose purpose is only to prevent countries like the United States from bullying them with our nuclear arsenal.

With the recently completed new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the United States and Russia have started a process that could result in the denuclearization of the planet.  Although it is an important first step, the time-line for the treaty is seven years for relatively modest cuts. To accelerate the process, the United States could propose moving on to the next round, which would include not only the Russian Federation, but also China, England, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and Iran.  As these agreements are implemented, they will create increasing confidence leading to a greater willingness to sign on to still another treaty that would further reduce the world’s supply of nuclear weapons.  By taking such a pivotal role in global disarmament, the United States will truly respond to claims that the United States is employing a double standard where certain states are allowed to possess nuclear weapons while others are not.

A special case is Israel and the Middle East, including Iran.  For over 50 years, the very existence of Israel has been threatened by its Arab neighbors, and with the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, the threat seems even worse.  Today, Israel has perhaps up to 200 nuclear weapons, although it has not officially declared itself a nuclear state.  If Israel is to divest itself of nuclear weapons, the answer must be the creation in the Middle East of a nuclear free zone so strongly guaranteed by the major powers that it would be credible to Israel.  The Middle East would then become still another nuclear free zone on this planet, such as Latin America and Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Pacific.

The U.S. must not hold to a double standard, talking about nuclear disarmament, while signing on to tens of billions of dollars to modernize our nuclear arsenal. Hans Blix, the chair of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission writes: “It is not a recipe for success to preach to the rest of the world to stay away from the very weapons that nuclear states claim are indispensable to their own security.”

The challenge confronting the United States is colossal. The United States must not only deal with its own security, but also confront the corporations, such as Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, which spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress for nuclear contracts.  The recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, giving corporations unlimited power to advertise for political purposes, makes this situation even worse.  With the opposition from these corporations as well as from an influential minority of the American public, the prospect of going much beyond START treaty seems difficult.  The solution may not be clear, but the destination is clearer than ever: nuclear abolition, because, as Pres. Obama says, “it is the right thing to do.”

What should be done?  Only an organized electorate that is well-informed about the dangers of nuclear weapons and willing to act can overcome this challenge.  This is the task of organizations like Physicians for Social Responsibility, Council for a Livable World, and The Project for Nuclear Awareness.  If such organizations can mobilize the public, we have a democratic chance.

The work involves not only the education of Congress and the Executive Branch, but also the education of the public, particularly of youth who will be carrying this fight on into the future.  As these organizations mobilize the public, they work not just against nuclear weapons, but for our survival.

Craig Eisendrath, PhD.

Chairman, Project for Nuclear Awareness

Image from joyerickson.files.wordpress.com

The image is from joyerickson.files.wordpress.com